Surely a quick one. However I heard the news today that last month the first Romanian national tournament took place, after the establishment in 2006 (by two expats living here - 2 Brits and an Australian) of the first local cricket team. I thought to celebrate this (hopefully) historic moment with a puzzle

Is any particular position relevant? Could someone with little to no knowledge of the game have the scrund? Figure out the scrund? Is the equipment relevant? Did you think the "stumps" were actually tree stumps?

Is any particular position relevant? No Could someone with little to no knowledge of the game have the scrund? Yes, exactly like I was at the time Figure out the scrund? Possibly Is the equipment relevant? Noish Did you think the "stumps" were actually tree stumps? No

Does your scrund relate to the rules of the game? The role of the Umpires? The time taken to play a match? How a match is actually won? Could the scrund apply to One Day Cricket as well as Test Cricket?

Is it the common scrund about the length of the pitch? A cricket pitch is actually 22 yards long but TV cameras tend to make them look considerably shorter.

Does your scrund relate to the rules of the game?Yes! and... The role of the Umpires? The time taken to play a match? How a match is actually won? ...exactly this! Could the scrund apply to One Day Cricket as well as Test Cricket? Both will do

Is it the common scrund about the length of the pitch? No A cricket pitch is actually 22 yards long but TV cameras tend to make them look considerably shorter.

Did you think it was the team who took the most wickets wins as opposed to the team who scored the most runs? E.g. If team A scores 250 for the loss of 8 wickets and the Team B scores 251 for the loss of 9 did you think Team A would win in that situation.

Or did you think the winner was the first team to score x number of runs?

Did you think it was the team who took the most wickets wins as opposed to the team who scored the most runs? E.g. If team A scores 250 for the loss of 8 wickets and the Team B scores 251 for the loss of 9 did you think Team A would win in that situation. Or did you think the winner was the first team to score x number of runs?

Short RECAP: Many years ago I had a scrund related to the game of cricket. It refers to the rules of the game, more specifically the ways of winning the game. Any form of cricket can be used, but not other sports -- baseball included.

Did you think the team with the most runs wins, when in fact it's something else? Runs vs. points relevant? No. I think however that the team with the most runs wins, but maybe I'm mistaking. To advance a hint, the method of scoring was what troubled me

Was your scrund about why there was somebody running back and forth between the stumps? Did you think that the scoreboard was communicating some information other than the number of runs and wickets? No to all

Did you think there were only those two people playing? I might have thought so, yes, but that wasn't the main scrund. Suffices to say that the others were not important in my mind Did you think the batsman scored for every ball he survived? No and FA every ball he hit irrespective of whether he ran between the wickets? No and FA Did you think only balls struck to the boundary counted? No

Did you witness the bowler bowling? Yes The batsman batting? Yes Did you misinterpret what the bowler was doing? Yope What the batsman was doing? Yope

Did you misunderstand the non strikers role? No Did you think the Batsman wanted the ball to hit his stumps? Not this, but getting closer when the batsman played a shot did you think he was trying to hit the stumps at the other end? No

Did you think the batsman was trying to hit the ball as hard as possible? In a certain direction? No to both. But is OTRT that I misunderstood their actions and more precisely the way of scoring points

Did you think the bowler got points whenever the batsman missed the ball? No Whenever the bowler hit the stumps? Not this, but close enough for the

******* SPOILER *******

As a kid, seing very rarely and only small fragments of cricket games, I was under the impression that only the bowler and the batsman were actually playing and that everything was a sort of a penalty shoot-out, the batsman playing the role of a goal-keeper (as in handball or football). A goal would be scored if the ball passed _between_ the stumps. Of course, I wondered why I never manage to see a 'goal' ... but solved it quickly: I must have had by accident caught a match with a great goalkeeper or an incompetent kicker.

Thanks to all for playing and especially Matt for sticking with it and providing the final pieces.